What I heard the NRA say.

Yes it is.

Not a difficult concept for me to grasp.

Not saying I WANT to implement "Second Amendment Remedies" to said scenario. Not saying I WANT to use my rifles for anything other than hunting either.

But I understand.....

p.s. There's always the Red Dawn scenario too.

(Now THAT'S what I think the founders were thinking about. Well, that and that they didn't want to have a standing army in peacetime)

[ p.s. There's always the Red Dawn scenario too.

[ (Now THAT'S what I think the founders were thinking about. Well, that and that they didn't want to have a standing army in peacetime) ]

I mostly agree, but I dont think the line between -"those governments, as distinct from OURS",....and, well,..."OURS", such as it is, was that big a distinction at the time.

anyway,...+^d

Yessir. I don't think they made any such distinction...only that OURS was a work in progress experimental prototype....subject, of course, to the same perils that THEIRS had.

yes but not machine guns.

I guess when you can deduct your security guard expenses, like Chris does, it doesn't matter what the cost of a bullet is, but we are going to need some government programs for the folks that can't use the tax codes to shelter themselves from the foolish bumper sticker remarks that a comedian puts forth...

I'm feeling disenfranchised already.

Notice that this is posted under Comedy. Some of the words were actually spoken but the others are just what I heard, I can read minds. ;-) If you can read between the lines of their statements you will hear the same things.

Hmmmm, . . .I'm more old school I suppose, if thinking along those lines ;

just "ONE THRUST" swords. ( Lets at least keep it up close and personal ! )

You mean like when the wrote the 2nd amendment? Hmmm. I think you are on to something here.

As an American, I think anyone who doesn't live in this country has nothing to say about my rights!

I personally don't give a $&!+ about votes here. It's just someone elses opinions.

Hey man,.....I'm not personally recommending the whole "vote" thing at all, its one of the ol' c u r r e n t "mechanics" that was put in place some years ago that many had disagreements with from its conception. I think comments should stand on their own and that should be the end of it : not really in favour of the whole junior high popularity meter thing at all.

But c u r r e n t stuck us with the fucker, so we might as well comport ourselves with honour, and some semblance of dignity.

This "I vote YOU down" - - - -"NO,....NO ! I vote YOU down" dipshitizm is,....uhm,...dipshitizm. When something is PARTICULARLY racist, or sexist,....or really really boring and/or unfunny,.....a " -Vd " would seem to be in order, but a gentleman leaves a card on your car window, when he leaves it smashed for illegally parking in "handicapped". ( I posit )

I just don't care what the votes are, only the discussion matters.

I comprehend . +^d ( heh ) - but really,....that was just a "thumbs up/I respect that" shorthand. Heck,....I will go ahead and click up that lil' arrow,....but I have no problem if you want to click it back down !

( Now, if someone ELSE were to do so . . . )

So, these days without a nuclear weapon to defend yourself from the government you are at a disadvantage with NO way of overthrowing the government. Are you advocating the right to have a personal nuclear weapon?
The constitution was written in FAR different circumstances and it is My belief that the founding fathers would have a FAR different view of “gun rights” in our modern world.

Voted up, sir remanns!

I simply disagree about the view our founding father would have - their world was JUST as dangerous , to THEM, as ours is to US.

The thing about "must have nukes",.....well,....naaaah,....weapons capable of causing tyrants, or the tyranny of ones fellows/the majority, even, a worrying discomfort of sorts, at least some inefficiency and COST,.........is what was envisioned, not the ability to CONQUER others oneself. So one could quibble about where to draw the line,....but clearly "enough force to surely WIN, or even surely break even, against an oppressive authority would be beyond the parameters required by some base standard.

I disagree, foos. I believe the founding fathers would want us to have access to nukes. C-130 gun ships, aircraft carriers, harrier jets, apache helicopters, flame throwers and pointy sticks should all be allowed, too. If the government has arms, we should also have them.

And so there it is; Your right to have and do Anything you want at the expense of anyone that gets in your way.
The founding fathers would be appalled.

I don't think so. I think the point is that everyone realizes that we, the people, no longer control the government. I couldn't even afford one nuke, much less an aircraft carrier. There are elements within our government who do not have our best interests in mind. I believe the founders would be proud of my way of thinking.

And I dissagree, strongly. These debates are Needed and the votes to be counted.

As long as they have our best interests in mind, yes. It's when the gov goes rouge, as it seems to have, then there is a problem. Do you think gun control is about our saftey? They got you fooled. It is about the communist takeover of our country, and you guys are voting the commies in.

I usually don't repeat a post but I think this needs repeating from below:
You still do not Need personal weapons of war at home to overthrow the government. With merely hunting rifles and pistols the government can be overthrown because with the FAR greater numbers of citizens vs government people that would fight back, it would be Very possible to take whatever weapons are needed From the government if it became necessary to do so. No personal weapons of war at home needed.

Excelent point(s)

It my personal opinion that your opinion of the founding fathers as unable to fathom their disisions for a future they could not predict reeks of the arogance and the disrespect too many have for the foresight of our ancestors.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what he wrote. further you know it and were still dishonest.

Get a civics leason, you cant just vote out a constitutional amendment.

I don't think their thinking, and circumstances, are nearly as alien and politically/psychologically/ sociologically/philosophical "different" as many seem to think.

The purely TECHNOLOGICAL changes are simply RELATIVE ; fewer people to kill,...weapons killed fewer people,....but death IS death to any given individual, at any given time and place.

They had a handle on the concept of "lethality" and did NOT live in some sort of "kinder gentler", or more naive time and world.

my very point.

I strongly suspected YOU did [ concur ] ! ( probably should have posted this as an isolated comment rather than a response,...no bother intended )

+^d and salute.

Arrogance and Disrespect? BS!!!
The forefathers where not Gods and they could Not see the future or even envision the possibility of the type of weapons we now have.
They Did make the constitution flexible so that future generations could change it as needed And they purposely made it open to interpretation. THAT was the genius of the constitution.
Arrogance is people that think they know Exactly what the forefathers intended and have No intention of accepting Any other explanation!

Too right. Death from disease, accidents and infections was much more commonplace in the late 18th century than today. Look at the massive differences in life spans between now and then.

They did not envision the Internet either but I bet you would scream bloody fucking Murder if some one suggested it did not fall under the first amendment right of free speech. Your argument about what the founders did or did not envision is the only attempt here at stating what the founders intended, So you sir are the only one being arrogant here by your own definition.

The internet? Really? The internet itself does not speak. The 'people' that post on the internet are the ones speaking. It has Nothing to do with the internet, only the People. And you would also scream if someone tried to take away Your right to speak.

commies???????????

Its 2013 and not 1951.

The example is there to demonstrate the illogical nature of your previous post about the founders not envisioning assault weapons and I am glad to see you agree that your point was stupid.

DId he say that we should have access to everything the government has? I think it is fair to say that no gun rights advocate actually believes that people should have access to a nuclear weapon. The comparison is a logical fallacy at best and an insult to intelligence of anyone trying to actually solve or discuss this problem. Anyone can parrot talking points on either side but doing so does not constitute genuine thought about the subject. Next time you want to discuss "gun rights", as you so mockingly phrased it, perhaps we should start from a reasonable jumping off point.

LOL
Thx

Our forefathers never imagined, even in their wildest dreams, that we would have weapons such as the ones we have today. Too many people try to imply that the second amendment was referring to Any weapon so I guess they think they have the right to own hand grenades, rocket launchers and Any other weapon they choose. Imagine if those were easily available to anyone that wants them, we would see FAR greater loss of innocent lives when someone goes 'ballistic'. Jefferson was a reasonable man and I think Jefferson would agree with restricting such weapons.

Will the NRA be pushing for a nuclear weapon in every household soon, you think?

Personally, I would never own a gun... I am disgusted by violence, and killing of any caliber and for any reason... and I agree that when our forefathers set down the rules, they essentially had muskets. But one thing our forefathers DID forsee is that the government could control us with force if they wanted if we had no way to protect ourselves. The way I see it, the right to bear arms is the right that protects the rest of the constitution and keeps a tiny bit of fear in the heart of our government.

It should be apparent at this point that the government is actually trying to remove guns (or at least identify "trouble cases") from us. This does not surprise me. I get what you mean... it's a slippery slope. Where does it end? Grenades, nuclear weapons... I get it.

But our government has used guns on it's own people in the past to force public opinion or stop protests, or kill union leaders... so they can't be trusted. If they have guns, then we need them too. I think what's coming is another revolution, personally. Shit's going to get bad... but until we live in a more peaceful world, we can't allow governments to control people with violence... and that's exactly what they'll do if we give them a chance to.

You still do not Need personal weapons of war at home to overthrow the government. With merely hunting rifles and pistols the government can be overthrown because with the FAR greater numbers of citizens vs government people that would fight back, it would be Very possible to take whatever weapons are needed From the government if it became necessary to do so. No personal weapons of war at home needed.

Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Those inherant and unalienable rights are found in the constitution. They include the second amendment as well as the ones you like. learn to deal with it or find another country that fits your safty concerns better and stop trying to "fix" this one.

Jefferson was a reasonable man and I think Jefferson would agree with restricting such weapons.

I think you're completely fooling yourself. try his thoughts on the Frinch rvolution for some insight on his opinions about arming the people.

Are you done condescendingly dismissing my points out of hand? Then let me please reiterate my points on the topics you wish me to cover for your comprehension. The Majority does not have the Power to take away the Rights of others. Particularly the Unalienable ones found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Of these this includes the right of the People to bear arms. This lesson about the power of the majority to take away rights is being demonstrated with the gay rights movement as it pertains to marriage. If this argument is to stand for Equal Marriage for GBLT then it certainly seems it must stand for the issue of the second amendment.

LOL
Now that's funny. Thx

So, if there were regulations already in place long ago banning extended magazines and assault weapons you think that the same amount of people would have died in gun violence this year? I think Not.
If we can save just a Few lives then it is worth it to Properly regulate those items.

Having a system in place that ensures accountability for those who misuse such weaponry is one thing - laws severely curtailing ownership and use by all is another. In the interest of preserving individual liberty and proceeding by the same "innocent until proven guilty" assumption we see in the law, we must assume an individual can responsibly own and use a weapon until they prove otherwise. Having accountability measures in place ensures maximum liberty and encourages maximum responsibility. The individual must know they are free to exercise their second amendment rights, but they should also know that, if their right is exercised irresponsibly, they can be easily identified, apprehended, judged and penalized for their behavior.

Controls simply create an antagonistic relationship between citizens and their representative government.

I have Never said I want to curtail ownership of guns, only War weapons like assault weapons and extended magazines used for killing as many People as possible.

The second amendment does not specify "right to bear arms except ... ". The primary purpose of that amendment is to ensure the citizen can defend themselves with or without the assistance of the government and especially if that government itself becomes the enemy. With a well-armed government, I believe the second amendment intends the average citizen also to have access to automatic weapons, i.e., anything that could be used against them to rob them of their liberty. At the time it was written, I believe the flintlock was the standard weapon. I don't suppose you suggest the second amendment means we can own flintlocks and nothing better, do you?

Perhaps a regulation allowing only flintlock weapons should be considered. That would certainly save many lives.

Allowing only flintlocks is contradictory to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the aim of our revolution. Ideally, in the United States, it is the individual that has primacy over the state, not the other way around.

It is the "Spirit" of that law that we disagree on.

+^d yepper.

And I contend that any citizen who does not understand the spirit of the law ought not have the right to vote for a government ruled by it.

So, only people that agree with your stance should be allowed to vote?

Ah, so you want to disenfranchise those who disagree with you about the "spirit" of the law? I guess it goes without saying no one who disagrees with you on the letter of the law has the right to vote to change it.

Unfortunately, many actually DO NOT view the spirit and intent of the amendment as congruent with their personal value systems,.....which is OK in principal, but the constitution needs to be amended again,....it WAS built with the intent that the people do JUST THAT,....but simply PRETENDING that the amendment in question DOESN'T mean what it does, is, well, a wimpy ass dodge.

p.s. +^d

If you think that this is a "stupid post" then Why are you here?
Unregulated guns are the reason for the U.S. being the Most Violent nation in the world, by FAR!

"Why are you here?"

To point out how stupid this post is.

By making up a bunch of b.s. and saying someone said something that they didn't say, and reporting it like it's true is libel. You could easily be sued.

LOL
If you look closer you will see that this is also posted under "Comedy" and as I say below: "I can read minds and this is what I heard." If you can read between the lines of their actual statements you will hear it to. ;-)

"If you think that this is a "stupid post" then Why are you here?".

Because it is difficult to separate the really dumb from the merely dumb without opening them. This IS a stupid post. You are using the homicide of 26 people, including 20 children by a nut case who stole the firearms to throw rocks at a civil rights organization responsible for the training of people in the safe use of firearms as well as developing programs to keep kids safe from guns as well as standing up for freedom and self defense. Why? Can't say for sure but is it because you dislike freedom, dislike the Constitution, dislike the NRA or have apolitical agenda that follows liberal positions of more government power over the defenseless citizens? However you slice it, yes, it is a stupid, not to mention reprehensible, post.

I don't have much of a sense of humor when anti-gun advocates like yourself spew lies to promote your agenda.

I'm not "anti-gun". I am anti-assault weapon and extended magazines.

Agree, well said!

I agree with you on this and there should be no list of people that are carrying guns. No one should see these guns are know who has one.

Another reason to own a gun, to defend yourself against someone with a hammer. I would not have believed that, but I do know someone that always carried a hammer in his car as a weapon.

You can defend yourself with a standard "Six Shooter", you don't need an assault rifle with extended magazine!

If a gang of thugs ever busts in your front door, (which I hope never happens), you are gonna wish you had an "extended mag" that you're so against.

Foosmaster is using the reprehensible act of a madman (who should not have had access to weapons of war) to push for stronger regulations so that such madmen might only have rocks to throw.

I can think of a couple fools who shouldn't be allowed to carry hammers.

I don't own or won't an AR15 or an extended Mag but I think we should be able to have anything that the police have. I don't trust the police.

I don't own Any weapon but I believe we have the right to own personal "standard" guns, just not weapons of War and extended magazines that are Only for killing as many "People" as possible. A standard pistol is enough to defend yourself with and unless you intend to get into an all-out gun battle you don't "Need" anything else.

No, I won't. You don't know me. If I have a gun they will be shooting at me but without a gun I will take my chances with them just taking what they want and maybe hurting me. If not, then, oh well.

That's the point. You can't ban hammers. Timothy McVieh used fertilizer. In China they use cleavers. Gun control will NOT make us safer, only more vulnerable.

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm way to polite.

I have carried a 5 shot revolver sense 69, later I went from 38 cal to 357 Mag, I always considered this enough. About a year ago I called the police on someone cooking Meth and selling drugs, the police came and when they saw there was an unmarked police car in the yard, they did nothing, I now carry a pistol and two Magazines 20 shots, and keep a rifle close.The road I live on is over 3 miles long and there are 6 maybe 7 people. I am in the middle of the woods. A Bank forecloser got rid of the bad neighbor but I still have a problem I don't trust the police and I fill I should be able to own anything that they can own.

I am a non-violent person that does Not own a gun but I feel ya.